Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Little-Known Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Little-Known Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Little-Known Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare

    According to this court case 'Halbig vs. Sebelius' in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the subsidies being provided are meant only for the states that set up their own insurance exchanges, not for the ones that don't. If it gets overturned it could eventually wind up being the decision of the Supreme Court. It would essentially almost sink Obamacare.
    Since healthcare is 'affordable' now, there's no need for subsidies. Get rid of them all imo.

  2. #12
    Advisor 29A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    St. Louis, MO.
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    450

    Re: Little-Known Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    According to this court case 'Halbig vs. Sebelius' in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the subsidies being provided are meant only for the states that set up their own insurance exchanges, not for the ones that don't. If it gets overturned it could eventually wind up being the decision of the Supreme Court. It would essentially almost sink Obamacare.
    I knew about this case, and there already was one ruling on it by a D. C. district court. On Wednesday, January 15, 2014, Judge Friedman (a Clinton appointee) delivered the court's opinion saying:

    "In other words, even where a state does not actually establish an Exchange, the federal government can create “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U.S.C. § 18031]” on behalf of that state. "
    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2013cv0623-67

    You may have to read that several times to let it sink in, but as David Bernstein said of the opinion, "the idea that “an exchange established by a state” can in practice be “an exchange established by the Federal Government on behalf of a state” seems to me to do violence to the English language. "

    I couldn't agree more.

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: Little-Known Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious View Post
    Looks like a major mistake was made or an intentional penalty against individuals who had to go thru the federal exchanges.
    ORRRR will cause a backlash against state leaders who for politics grandstanded the exchange issue and refused to play nice. (like our state)

    But I figure those hoping to keep the wording exact, and not allow for a group of states refusing to set up the exchanges and forcing the federal government to step in, will sink the ACA is a forlorn hope.

    Someone opined some Bush Appointees would help torpedo the law... Chief Justice Roberts is a Bush appointee and when he had a perfect opportunity to torpedo the ACA and what did he do????

  4. #14
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,186
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Little-Known Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by 29A View Post
    I knew about this case, and there already was one ruling on it by a D. C. district court. On Wednesday, January 15, 2014, Judge Friedman (a Clinton appointee) delivered the court's opinion saying:

    "In other words, even where a state does not actually establish an Exchange, the federal government can create “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U.S.C. § 18031]” on behalf of that state. "
    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2013cv0623-67

    You may have to read that several times to let it sink in, but as David Bernstein said of the opinion, "the idea that “an exchange established by a state” can in practice be “an exchange established by the Federal Government on behalf of a state” seems to me to do violence to the English language. "

    I couldn't agree more.
    The FEDs can over turn the states on almost any decision, unless court rules different. And even then that can be appealed to higher courts.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •